Actually, given a well-chosen jury, I’d be inclined to believe that defense could fly. That guy looks like my brother in particularly bad Halloween costume accompanied by Jamie Lynn Spears.
Shodan, I respect your political viewpoints might be less than liberal, but you’re just not funny. Find a new schtick already.
My understanding of federal conspiracy is that the crime of conspiracy requires bi-lateral agreement, i/e an actual meeting of the minds. The fact that the “undercover” guys had no intent, yet alone any actual ability, to commit the crime of __________ (whatever you are putting forth as the underlying crime) would defeat any possible conspiracy charge.
Good point, and I fail to understand how the civilians who instigated this would not be considered co-conspirators if this agreement took place.
Standards of evidence are certainly under discussion in this thread. That is, since you seem to share Bricker’s fascination with narrow technical matters while completely missing the point. If you agree that context and judgment are important too, well, that’s not in evidence here.
But you’re still doing better than Shodan, who obviously is not interested in debate or enlightenment at all, but only heckling. He’s the board’s Joe Wilson, and proud of it too.
But isn’t this like those 60 Minutes pieces when they appear to conspire with the guy who turns back the mileage on all the cars he sells?
I don’t know the specific facts of what you’re talking about, but I’m guessing that said guy would be charged with actually turning back the mileage and not for conspiring with Andy Rooney’s eyebrows to turn back the mileage.
I’ve said several times that I believe there’s enough evidence to warrant an investigation of Bush and Cheney’s roles in various potential crimes. Where are you getting the contrary impression?
Anyone who actually believes that the questions posed are legitimate–as opposed to simply being vehicles for harrassment–is welcome to open a separate thread to discuss that issue.
Bricker, of course, is under no compulsion to participate.
Assuming you are not looking to be sanctioned for intemperate behavior in GD, I would guess that you will omit insults, even conditional ones, from future posts.
[ /Moderating ]
The answer to your point is exactly what Hamlet is suggesting is fatal to the conspiracy charge: the phony pimp and prostitute never intended to actually reach an agreement, so there was no criminal liability for conspiracy on their part. Hamlet correctly says that the federal conspiracy law requires bilateral agreement; a “meeting of the minds.” In other words, if there are two conspirators, and one doesn’t really intend to go through with it, then there’s no conspiracy. That would ordinarily be a tough row to hoe, because the jury can infer that people intend the ordinary consequences of their actions, and saying “I really didn’t mean it,” is likely to be seen as self-serving.
In this case, though, given the videotape and the subsequent actions of the faux pimp, it’s pretty clear he never intended to secure a mortgage. So he cannot be one of the conspirators.
So what’s left? In the Brooklyn tape, there are two ACORN workers, and theoretically they could be tried as conspirators with each other. However, there’s a substantial uphill path there: in determining whether a conspiracy has been formed, the court may consider whether there was “…mutual dependence among the participants…” US v. Vanwort, 887 F.2d 375, 383 (2nd Cir. 1989). In this case, the two ACORN workers were not mutually benefitted by their participation in the scheme, or to the extent that they were, it was a de minimis benefit. Now, that’s a question of fact, and again I’d say that there’s a sufficient record to make to a legally sustainable guilty verdict… but as a practical matter, I think that does torpedo the claim.
In the Baltimore tape, there’s talk of ACORN filing false tax returns for a fee and I think that’s sufficient benefit for the two workers, so I’d say that – again, based on the record as the appeals cout looks at it after a conviction – it’s legally sufficient.
I am sure that there must be a Pit thread, somewhere, dealing with this nonsense where you can post your attempts at humor.
Stop threadshitting, here.
[ /Modding ]
Then the prosecution has to fall back on *attempted *conspiracy : the will to participate in a theoretical future crime :p.
If memory serves, that ground has long been broken, the Chicago Seven were charged with conspiracy to destroy America even as it was admitted that they had not communicated with each other.
Completely unwarranted. IMO. I have by no means missed the point of Mr. O’Keefe’s attempt at smearing ACORN, as anyone who has read any of my posts in other threads on this subject could figure out for themselves. Sorry if I don’t meet your standard for polemic in a thread, but I guess I can’t please everyone.
So if my wife meets with an undercover cop who she thinks is a hit man and pays him money to kill me, there is no conspiracy since the cop wasn’t really in on it, so my wife walks?
Not trying to snark; I just don’t understand this. It seems like if this were true, there could never be any undercover stings.
I may be wrong here, but in the above case, money changes hands, proving intent. IIRC the specific crime is ‘solicitation to murder’ or something like that, rather than conspiracy.
Had to refresh my memory on that one, and immediately got all weepy and nostalgic for the days of the Yippies. If Wikipedia is accurate, the main charge was just ‘conspiracy’ (although personally I’d rather be charged with ‘conspiracy to destroy America’ myself, 'cause it sounds badass). All seven were acquitted of the conspiracy charge in the initial trial. Although five of the seven were convicted on other charges, apparently even those convictions were later reversed.
I deliberately didn’t explore this alternative.
But since you ask. 
Attempt happens when an actor has the intent to commit a crime and takes a substantial step in the furtherance of the criminal act. It’s possible to attempt to commit conspiracy; the crime is better known as solicitation. In general, criminal solicitation occurs when the actor commands, urges, or requests another to commit a crime. The crime of solicitation is complete at the moment of the urging; it doesn’t matter if the other person agrees to commit the crime or not.
I don’t recall off the top of my head if there’s a general federal solicitation statute, which is why I left this alternative uncommented.
There is a difference between not being chaged with conspiracy and not being charged at all. She wouldn’t just walk, the prosecutor would charge her with solicitation to commit.
And, just to be complete, not every state requires “bilateral agreement” for a conspiracy charge, some only require a unilateral agreement.
"“Under a unilateral formulation, the crime of conspiracy is committed when a person agrees to proceed in a prohibited manner; under a bilateral formulation, the crime of conspiracy is committed when two or more persons agree to proceed in such manner. See Note [Conspiracy; Statutory Reform Since the Model Penal Code, 75 Colum.L.Rev. 1122, 1136 (1975)]. Under either approach, the agreement is all-important to conspiracy. Under the unilateral approach, as distinguished from the bilateral approach, the trier-of-fact assesses the subjective individual behavior of a defendant, rendering irrelevant in determining criminal liability the conviction, acquittal, irresponsibility, or immunity of other co-conspirators. See Burgman, [Unilateral Conspiracy: Three Critical Perspectives, 20 DePaul L.Rev. 75, 76-77 (1979)]. Under the traditional bilateral approach, there must be at least two ‘guilty’ persons, two persons who have agreed.” (Emphasis in original.) State v. Rambousek.
But federally, I think it is bilateral.
The reversals were based on trial procedural errors regarding jury selection, though, not the underlying merits of the charges.
As to the “they didn’t talk to each other,” claim…
I don’ t know the specifics of the Chicago Seven’s communications. But let’s say elucidator and I agree to illegally profit from insider trading. I feed him information about corporate acquisitions, he trades on the information and gives me some of the profits. In an effort to further disguise his trading patterns, I advise him to spread out his trades; he then involves you by passing on some of my tips. It’s quite possible for all of us to be charged with conspiracy, even though you and I have never talked or even seen or heard of each other.
It is. It’s the “Sears Rule,” after Sears v. US, 343 F.2d. 139 (5th Cir. 1965). “…and as it takes two to conspire, there can be no indictable conspiracy with a government informer who secretly intends to frustrate the conspiracy.” Although there’s no Supreme Court precedent I can find, pretty much every other circuit has adopted the rule. Cites on request.